the inconvenience of a return to town. After some further discussion Lord Clanricarde agreed to postpone his notice of resolutions. On the 3rd of December the noble Lord laid on the table of the House of Lords a resolution on the commercial policy of the country which he had intended to move, but which he now waived in favour of one suggested by Lord Derby. The Earl of Derby expressed his satisfaction at the course pursued by Lord Clanricarde, and his cordial hope that from that moment the controversy as to the relative merits of free trade and protection might be set at rest, and that no attempt might be made to disturb the system recently adopted. The Marquis of Clanricarde then adopted Lord Derby's resolution, and gave notice that he would bring it forward on the 6th of December, adding that under the circumstances he did not think any discussion would arise on his motion. On that day the motion was proposed, but it did not meet with that degree of unanimous approbation that the noble Mover had anticipated. A long and interesting debate took place on the resolution adopted by Lord Clanricarde at the suggestion of Lord Derby, which was expressed in the following terms :— "That this House, thankfully acknowledging the general prosperity, and deeply sensible of the evils attending frequent changes in the financial policy of the country, adheres to the commercial system recently established, and would view with regret any attempt to disturb its operations or impede its progress." Lord Clanricarde commenced his speech, by saying that he found himself in the unfortunate but not uncommon position of a man who, in striving to gain unanimity by concession, ended in being opposed by all parties. He thought, however, that some such resolution was necessary, partly from the peculiar position in which the House was placed after what had taken place in the Lower House, and partly because, apart from other considerations, it was desirable that their Lordships should express an opinion on the policy of free trade. For himself, he should have been better pleased if the Government would have come to the same resolution as that adopted by the House of Commons, and he could not at all understand why that course had not been followed; but, as an unanimous vote was not to be expected in that case, he had thought it right to accept the present resolution as the best that was to be obtained under all the circumstances. If, however, the House wished to see a full explanation and justification of free-trade policy, they need only consult the memorable protest drawn up by Lord Grenville in 1815, in which all the arguments in favour of such a policy were ably and eloquently stated. The noble Lord concluded by moving the resolution suggested by Lord Derby. The Earl of Aberdeen thought that in a body so constituted as the House of Lords, which was not liable to change like the House of Commons, and which had already on several occasions expressed its adhesion to a freetrade policy, any such resolution was uncalled for and unnecessary. That House could come to no resolution of the slightest practical importance on the question which had been irrevocably decided by the will of the nation. If its decision were in unison with that will, it would be useless; if adverse, it would be impotent against the determination of the country, and would only be injurious to the character of the House. The time was come, when the friends of the late Sir Robert Peel might congratulate themselves and the country on the complete success of those measures for which he had suffered and sacrificed so much. As for the resolution before them, he could not have believed it possible that it would be seriously proposed. He was the last person in the world to deny that every advantage possessed by man was due to the bounty of an overruling Providence, but when the resolution ascribed the general prosperity to Providence he could not help saying that in this case Providence had blessed human agency. The resolution went on to give grounds for accepting a free-trade policy, which were insufficient, and for his own part, if he adhered to that policy, it was because he thought it "wise, just, and beneficial." He did not, however, wish to force the Government to come to a vote in that form of words, but he could not but express his opinion of the utter inadequacy of the resolution now before the House. over Lord Beaumont was entirely at a loss to comprehend why the Government had not adopted the resolution which had been passed in the Lower House by so whelming a majority. For himself, he had been so astonished at the concession made by Lord Clanricarde to Lord Derby in the case of the resolution before the House, that he had been unable even to give notice of a motion on the subject. Upon consideration, he thought the best course would be at once frankly and loyally to adopt the resolution of the House of Commons, and he therefore begged leave to move that resolution as an amendment to Lord Clanricarde's motion. The Earl of Derby said that he felt it his duty to offer some explanations as to Lord Clanricarde's resolution. It had been suggested by himself, and adopted by the noble Marquis after consultation with his friends, as likely to attain a very important object-an unanimous opinion of the House on our commercial policy. On that understanding he had informed his friends that their attendance would be unnecessary, and it was, therefore, with the utmost surprise that he learned that not only a discussion was to take place, but a hostile amendment was also to be proposed. Lord Beaumont said he was so much astonished that he lost his power of speech; but had the noble Lord lost his power of speech on the subsequent day, when, though present in the House, he gave no notice of his motion? It had been said that the resolution gave no assurance of the intentions entertained by members of the Government, but such an assurance was to be found, as had been promised, in the financial statement of the Government. budget, founded on the principles of free trade, was a far more practical proof of sincerity than any abstract motion, and after such a proof it was ungenerous to cavil at a resolution expressly framed to secure the adhesion of the greatest number of peers without doing violence to their feelings. The Earl of 66 Aberdeen had spoken of the late Sir Robert Peel, but he was lost in astonishment when he heard that noble Lord stigmatize a resolution, commendatory of the policy of that statesman, as a reactionary motion." With regard to Sir Robert Peel, he would defy his warmest friend to point out anything either said or written by him (Lord Derby) derogatory to the character or affecting the integrity of that statesman. The noble Lord concluded his speech by an appeal to the House not to fetter noble Lords who supported the Government by forcing on them resolutions which they could not conscientiously adopt. As for the reso The Marquis of Lansdowne declared that he felt himself bound by the understanding to which Lord Derby had alluded, and he was therefore precluded from voting for the amendment. lution of Lord Clanricarde, he thought on the whole it might be adopted, especially as there were some parts of it, especially that sentence which deprecated financial changes, which he could accept with pleasure, and from which he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might take warning before he proceeded to meddle with certain taxes which were the mainstay of the revenue. The Earl of Radnor who had taken his seat in the House for the first time for some years in order A to oppose the motion of Lord Clanricarde, moved the adjournment of the debate. The Earl of Harrowby suggested the omission of the first part of the motion, which gave reasons for the course pursued by the House, and thought there could then be no doubt of an unanimous vote on the subject. The Duke of Newcastle seconded the proposition of Lord Harrowby, and vindicated in an able speech the policy of the late Sir Robert Peel. Lords Clanricarde, Beaumont, and Radnor, then withdrew their respective motions, and the original resolution, as amended by Lord Harrowby, was unanimously carried. This closed the discussions on free trade, which had for so many years proved the subject of controversy in Parliament. CHAPTER VII. IRISH LAND TENURE:-Mr. Napier, Attorney-General for Ireland, introduces four Bills for adjusting the Relations between Landlord and Tenant-Serjeant Shee brings in a Bill for the same Object— After some Discussion the respective Measures are referred, by consent of the Government, to a Select Committee. THE SUGAR DUTIES:Mr. James Wilson draws the attention of the House of Commons to the beneficial Effects of the successive Alterations in the Tariff as regards Sugar-Speech of Sir John Pakington in Answer-Remarks of Mr. Hume, Lord Stanley, and other Members. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EMPIRE IN FRANCE:-The Event is communicated to the House of Lords by the Earl of Malmesbury on the 6th of December— His Comments on the Event-Remarks of Viscount Canning on the Terms of the Foreign Secretary's Announcement-The Fact is briefly stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons. INCREASE OF THE ESTIMATES WITH REFERENCE TO THE NATIONAL DEFENCES:-Propositions made by Mr. Stafford, Secretary to the Admiralty-Lord John Russell warmly supports the Vote for an Increase of the Navy, which is carried-Augmentations are also voted for the Artillery. FINANCIAL PROJECTS OF THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:-The Right Honourable Gentleman, in a comprehensive Speech of Five Hours, developes his Views to the House on the 3rd of December with respect to Financial Policy-Leading Topics of his Speech-Alterations affecting the Income Tax, Malt Tax, Tea Duties, House Tax, Hop Duty, and other minor Branches of Revenue— His Speech is much applauded, but no definite Opinion is pronounced upon the Scheme when first proposed-A few Days afterwards Mr. Gladstone announces his decided Hostility to the proposed Re-adjustment of the Income Tax-Mr. Goulburn expresses the same Views-Observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer-Lord John Russell expresses his Apprehensions for the Financial Security of the Country, if Mr. Disraeli's Schemes should be adopted-The general Discussion of the Ministerial Propositions commences on the 10th of December, and is continued for Four Nights by successive Adjournments—Most of the leading Members of the House take part in the Debate, including Sir E. B. Lytton, Mr. T. Duncombe, Sir Charles Wood, Mr. Cobden, Lord John Manners, Mr. Lowe, Mr. F. Peel, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Goulburn, Lord Jocelyn, Mr. Bernal Osborne, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Hume, Sir James Graham, Sir John Pakington, Mr. Whiteside, Sir F. Baring, and other Members-The Chancellor of the Exchequer retorts upon the Opponents of his Scheme in a Speech replete with Point and Sarcasm-Mr. Gladstone, in earnest and powerful Lan |